United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS H GREWAL (of Counsel) Instructed by: Sam Moseley & Co Solicitors 146 The Strand London WC2R 1JA


 


JUDGE COLLINS:

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford whose extended reasons were promulgated on 4 November 1999. In the afternoon of the first day of the hearing on 25 October 1999 the respondents conceded that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed. Until that time they had been contending that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but as the tribunal found she was dismissed from her position as a solicitor with the North Lewisham Law Centre for purely political reasons. There is no obvious case on the papers that the reason why she was dismissed could ever have been an admissible reason.
2. After that concession, the tribunal's only concern was with compensation. The Tribunal decided not to make a basic award because the appellant had received a sum on the incorrect basis that she was redundant, which equalled the basic award. The Tribunal's attention had not been brought to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Boreman v Almakes Ltd [1995] IRLR 553. If it had been it is plainly a very real possibility that they would have not taken that view.
3. So far as the compensatory award is concerned the Tribunal decided that if the respondents had carried out their procedures properly the appellant would in any event have been dismissed within 3 months. Accordingly they decided that compensation should be limited to that period and there should be a set off of the balance of the sum which had been paid for redundancy. If the appellant's argument is right, there could never been a fair reason for dismissing her and therefore the basis for not awarding compensation for longer than 3 months falls to the ground. This is clearly arguable.
4. Finally the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay £250 costs to the respondents in relation to the second day of the hearing, on the basis that once a concession of unfair dismissal had been made it was obvious that she was not going to get any net award and should not have incurred further costs. That will be shown to have been a wrong decision if the appellant succeeds in either of her principal arguments. We cannot resist the temptation to remark that the Tribunal's approach would seem to be equally applicable against the respondents who defended a case on liability on a spurious ground until the afternoon of the first day of the case. The Tribunal did not think it necessary to make an award of costs to reflect that. The case will proceed to a full hearing on all grounds.